[Rd] Debate: Shall some of Microsoft R Open Code be ported to mainstream R?
avraham.adler at gmail.com
Mon Oct 30 18:45:26 CET 2017
[Sent offlist accidentally]
What concerns me first and foremost is that the licensure would have
to be ironclad (including for commercial use like vanilla R now) as
well as ensuring that R remains completely FLOSS. Anything “added” to
R has to be a no-strings-attached gift to R.
Also, I would think that it would have to play nice with existing
workflows (like OpenBLAS instead of MKL) unless there is such a
benefit that it is worth breaking compatibility.
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Kenny Bell <kmbell56 at gmail.com> wrote:
> User here: incorporating Intel's MKL, as MRO does, would be a very welcome
> I was an MRO user before and it improved my experience with medium data
> They did, however, leave behind bugs here and there, especially related to
> development with Rcpp, so I switched back to vanilla R.
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017, 9:42 AM Juan Telleria <jtelleriar at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear R Developers,
>> First of all, I would like to thank you Jeroen Ooms for taking the binary
>> Window Builds from Duncan. I firmly believe that the R Community will
>> benefit a lot from his work.
>> However, the debate I would like to open is about if some of Microsoft R
>> Open Code shall be ported from R Open to Mainstream R.
>> There are some beneficts in R Open such as multithreaded performance:
>> Maybe, the R Consortium, and in particular, Microsoft R Team, could
>> collaborate, if appropriate, in such duty.
>> Thank you,
>> Juan Telleria
>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
More information about the R-devel